What is it?

[George Smolinski]

[3macboys]

1956 Oldsmobile Golden Rocket - amazing number of styling ques for future GM products

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by 3macboys (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

The color photo in the first post is NOT the original Golden Rocket. It is a photoshop version. Note the fins, the altered angle of the C-pillar, the chopped roof, the added Bertone emblem, the wheels and tires, and the fact that it is lowered. Also note the artist's watermark in the lower RH corner. There are a lot of these photoshopped what-if renderings on the web now. This is the original, GM version of that photo, without the photoshop embellishments.

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[George Smolinski]

I think I like the styling in the photo I posted better than the original. The fins on the original look wimpy. The sloped roof & back glass in my post are more stylish IMHO. Either way, I wouldn't kick it out of my garage.

[Guest]

Even photoshopping a picture is a modification.  The original picture is what GM built and therefore shows the styling  ques properly.   Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and I think the original picture, un-photoshopped, is a far better looking car.

[1912Staver]

Both are interesting , But I have to agree with George about the fins. They look like a last minute add on  the original. The altered version makes them look like they were an integral part of the design concept.

 

Greg in Canada

[joe_padavano]

1 hour ago, Tinindian said:

Even photoshopping a picture is a modification.  The original picture is what GM built and therefore shows the styling  ques properly.   Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and I think the original picture, un-photoshopped, is a far better looking car.

 

More to the point, the original is a copyrighted GM image. The artist is violating that copyright.

[mike6024]

It's not meant to be a big-finned car. Bullet nose and tapered rear.

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by mike6024 (see edit history)

[George Smolinski]

2 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

The artist is violating that copyright.

Someone needs to call the copyright police.

[Billy Kingsley]

I see a lot of Corvette in the design- especially the roof and the area between the rear bullets. The little fins do look a tiny but out of place, but it's the 50s. Fins were in. 

[Guest]

Yes, I wonder if Bill Mitchell and/or Larry Shinoda had a hand in this design?

[3macboys]

Between the 63 Split window I also see a 60 Cadillac

 

[Guest]

While the '63 split window Corvette has become pretty collectable due to its only being available the first year, it was a contentious choice. Bill Mitchell wanted it. Larry Shinoda hated it. Bill said it gave the follow through look of a stingray's tail. Larry held that it was a dated look, much like a split windshield would have been in 1963. Most cars had dropped split rear windows 30 years earlier so this was not a new or innovative look to a great designer like Larry, to say nothing of the poor visibility issues it would create. Mitchell pulled rank and the split was installed. The public loved the car but many complained of the poor rearward visibility so when the '64's were introduced the first design change was to drop the split. Many '63 owners had the split removed from their cars and had the upgraded newer window installed. 

I'm with Larry on this one. I've owned several Corvettes from this era and the '63 is my least favorite for just that reason. I drive my cars daily so I never cared for the split and, like others have said, rarity doesn't really mean desirability. If you've ever driven a 1964-'67 coupe, the rear vision is pretty poor to start with. Add a 6 inch wide pillar down the middle and you may as well throw the rearview mirror away.

To give you an idea this is the rearward view in my '65 coupe:

[1937hd45]

   My compliments to the photoshop artist changing the goofy to good looking. Bob 

[capngrog]

There is a reason that the "split window" was only offered in the 1963 Corvette.  I've driven many miles in a '63, and the rear ward vision was marginal at best.  The rearward vision in my '64 coupe was much better.  Just because something is rare doesn't mean it's valuable.  Something has to be desirable to become valuable.  For example, I'm a fan and owner of several Crosleys.  The Crosleys are rare, but not particularly desirable (by most folks); therefore, they aren't that valuable (co$tly).

 

Pardon me, I I got off track from the Original Post.  I agree that the photo shopped car is better looking (with the exception of the excessive lowering) than the one in the real photo; however, when something like that is photo shopped or otherwise modified, a disclaimer should accompany the modified image/photo.

 

Cheers,

Grog

[58L-Y8]

The wheels tucked up into the wheelwells are the tip-off this is photoshopped image.   While they happily skirted the rear fenders then, no one thought wheels pushed way up into the wheelwells looked good then...except Nash!

[joe_padavano]

25 minutes ago, 58L-Y8 said:

The wheels tucked up into the wheelwells are the tip-off this is photoshopped image.

 

Well, that and the altered wheel openings, the deleted parting line where the fender skirt mates to the body, the chopped roof, the extended rear glass, etc, etc. If you do a side-by-side comparison, you'll also see that they played with the lighting in the clouds and other parts of the background.

[Billy Kingsley]

Considering that the thread title is "What is it?" I doubt that a disclaimer about it being a modified image would have been possible. The replies including the original photo made editing the original post redundant. 

 

If it was known to be a Photoshop job that would be totally different.